Reyhane Hejazi - Abbas Araghchi, a senior member of Iran’s negotiating team, described the talks as “a good start,” while stressing that their continuation would depend on consultations in the respective capitals and on decisions taken outside Muscat.
According to Araghchi, there was near-consensus between the two sides on continuing the negotiations in principle. However, he noted that the timing, format, and level of future talks would be determined in upcoming consultations to be conducted through Omani mediator Abu Saeidi. He emphasized that these decisions would ultimately hinge on political deliberations in Tehran and on the posture adopted by the opposing side.
Araghchi also identified the accumulation of deep mistrust as the most serious obstacle facing the negotiations. He said this distrust—rooted in past experiences and intensified in recent months—must first be addressed before any new framework for dialogue can be designed that genuinely secures the interests of the Iranian people.
While he noted that constructive discussions had taken place and that both sides’ views were heard, he cautioned against premature judgments, stressing that progress would depend on the continuity of the current process and on decisions made in Tehran.
In this context, the Muscat talks appear less as a venue for resolving core disputes and more as a testing ground for intentions, risk management, and the political cost of either sustaining or abandoning diplomacy.
1. Opening Phase: Text Exchanges and Iran’s Emphasis on Sanctions Relief
According to field reports from the negotiations, the Muscat talks began at 10:00 a.m. Tehran time and quickly entered a substantive phase despite being conducted indirectly.
As of the time of reporting, two rounds of text exchanges had taken place between the parties, along with one round of consultations with their respective capitals.
Iran’s central position in the talks has been a clear and consistent demand for sanctions relief, which Tehran considers a prerequisite for any meaningful nuclear cooperation.
The U.S. delegation participated with a small team consisting of Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and General Michael Kurilla (Commander of U.S. Central Command)—a composition reflecting both political and security dimensions of Washington’s approach.
2. Competing Narratives: Media Pressure Versus Negotiating Room Reality
Parallel to the talks, the United States has sought to shape the media environment through a strategy of implicit threats—an approach that does not fully align with its conduct inside the negotiating room.
Creating a threat-oriented media atmosphere appears to be part of Washington’s negotiating tactics.
The presence of the CENTCOM commander, public references to a potential transitional government involving Iranian expatriates, and warnings issued to U.S. citizens about leaving Iran have all contributed to this messaging strategy.
However, available assessments suggest that Washington’s actual positions at the negotiating table do not necessarily match its public rhetoric.
Overall, indications point to the U.S. administration being unwilling, at least at this stage, to allow the talks to collapse.
3. Internal U.S. Divisions and a Focus on a Political Framework
The substance of the discussions suggests that the Muscat talks have been more political than technical in nature.
There is a growing likelihood that the negotiations may extend over a prolonged period, given the complexity of decision-making on both sides.
Discussions have focused primarily on a broad political understanding, rather than on detailed technical nuclear issues.
Internal divisions within the U.S. policy-making structure have cast a shadow over the talks, producing mixed signals at the negotiating table.
Within this dynamic, Witkoff is reportedly continuing efforts to align his approach with Israeli positions—a factor that could complicate future stages of the negotiations.
4. Conclusion of the First Round: A Political Framework Over a Final Deal
The first round of negotiations concluded on Friday evening without a formal agreement, but with an emphasis on shaping the path forward.
The talks were conducted indirectly, limited strictly to nuclear issues, and mediated by Oman.
Iran’s proposed equation centered on sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear cooperation, alongside the elimination of threats.
While significant disagreements remain, the U.S. side—despite Iran’s firm positions—has shown no clear inclination toward abandoning the talks.
At this stage, the primary focus has been on defining a political framework for future negotiations, rather than achieving a final agreement.
The Muscat talks represent a cautious attempt to step back from a cycle of escalating tensions—one that remains highly dependent on political decisions in Tehran and Washington.
As Araghchi emphasized, the talks may have begun on a positive note, but their continuation and ultimate outcome will be determined not in Muscat, but in the capitals. In an atmosphere still dominated by deep mistrust, nuclear diplomacy has entered a phase where even small shifts in political calculations could decisively alter its trajectory
Your Comment